School Is For Academics

Friday Night Lights is a fictional account of a Texas highschool football team. Some but not much of the show portrays the students’ lives in the classroom and in the school halls. What is evident from the show is that football is an important part of the highschool experience, at least for the players and possibly the cheerleading squad. While the show is a fictional account, the impact of school sports in actual schools is real, and much of it is adverse for the majority of students. It is time to reconsider whether sports should remain part of public education institutions.

A minority of students in either a highschool or university actually partake in extracurricular sports; however, all students are impacted. The after school games are scheduled for times when travel to and from the event will put the child home at a "reasonable" hour. The academic schedule is designed to prevent the athletes from missing too much class time. The end result is that classes start earlier in the day then they would if the sports schedule was not accounted for. Students who are highschool and university age have brains that do not function fully until later in the morning, yet due in large part to the athletic schedule, schools start at 7:30 a.m. or earlier. Thus the first hour and a half to two hours of school are unproductive because the students’ brains are not yet awake. Worse yet, a number of students throughout the nation have a bus ride of an hour or more, which requires that they get out of bed before 6:00 a.m. to prepare for school and catch the public school bus. Requiring that students get up this early is detrimental to their learning abilities. This basis alone is sufficient to justify removing sports from school or at least adjusting the academic schedule to be less beholden to the athletic schedule.

Here in New Jersey schools are funded through property taxes. At least one half of a resident’s property tax goes to the public school districts. A not insubstantial amount of a school budget goes to the funding of extracurricular sports. By removing this budget item a number of books and possibly additional teachers could be paid for. Again, a minority of students are directly benefitted by school sports in comparison to the number of students in any given school; however, all students are having a reduction in the number of teachers, books and quality of education materials they receive due to the athletic budget.

Academics suffer as a result of sports. There are a number of incidents throughout the country whereby a budget battle erupts within a board of education or a budget is voted down by the electorate and libraries, arts, music and other classes are cut from the budget in a supposed attempt to balance the budget. Rarely does the athletic budget get cut. Such acts by board of educations are purely political. They believe that a budget will pass if the electorate believes that the alternative is cutting academic programs.

The United States lags far behind other first world nations in the quality of education that public school students are receiving. One thing that needs to be addressed is how to raise the quality. By requiring schools to be for education opposed to having a major focus on sports as currently exists, the US education quality will rise. By starting classes at hours that are more conducive to a student’s education abilities and funding education opposed to sports, this can be achieved.

Alternate Path

Report after report concludes that the middle-class is being squeezed out of being able to afford college costs. As previously argued in this blog, (Middle Class Tax; Personal Savings Rate; The Lost Generation) much of this debt is a result of less governmental assistance for students to pay for college and a shift from need-based assistance to loans. Coupled with a 375% increase in tuition and fees between 1982 and 2005, the financial shift has had a disproportionate impact on the middle and lower class. With such staggering numbers and no change in sight, its time for the marketplace establish new options.

Colleges do not produce students who are ready to work in the marketplace. Prior to Airborne Express being purchased by another company it had a fairly large computer programming department. Whenever it hired a new computer programer who had recently graduated from college the company wrote off the person’s first year salary because that person was going to spend more time in training, at a significant cost to the company, than performing actual work. If the private company is burdened with training the employee, then there is little or no difference between the current student and someone without a college education that has some basic background in computer programming.

The marketplace needs to establish an alternative to the overly priced college education that does not prepare someone for work. An intense two year program in computer programming which is conducted in cooperation with local and national businesses to determine a curriculum, that is cheaper than the current college tuition, will be better for the students and businesses than the current system. In addition to providing the students the actual necessary tools, not just the ones some academic thinks is necessary, by having business connections and cooperation will assist the students in establishing connections with possible employers and creates a greater chance of the students becoming employed.

This educational model will benefit all. The students will have less costs since the education process will be for fewer years and the business community will benefit since it will not have to retrain new employees coming from these institutions. It is time to reevaluate the educational process and start preparing students for the work they are going to do upon graduation instead of preparing them for a life of student loan debt.

Class Warfare

For years we heard the Republicans explain that President Clinton was passing balanced budgets because there was a Republican Congress. However, now that there is a GOP dominated government – White House, Congress and Supreme Court – we see the most fiscally irresponsible government this nation has had in generations. Their actions show that the balanced budgets of the 1990s was due solely to the Democratic leadership of President Clinton and had nothing to do with a Republican Congress.

In 1993, President Clinton passed an economic package by a single vote in the Senate, which was cast by Vice President Gore. From that point on, the government was on a defined economic plan that over the course of five years resulted in balance budgets being submitted to the Congress and budget surpluses being established. The fiscal discipline extended to President Clinton vetoing irresponsible bills such as the repeal the Estate Tax. President Clinton vetoed the bill after it was delivered to the White House by a farmer on a tractor. The GOP argued that it is the farmers and small business owners who were hurt by the Estate Tax, yet despite this argument neither the farming lobby nor the GOP could show one farmer who lost his farm due to the tax. It was just a give away to the rich, and President Clinton did the responsible thing by vetoing it.

In contrast the House of Representatives, among other things, passed a $50 billion spending cut package. The spending cuts include reducing funding for food stamps, student loan subsidies, farmer subsidies, child care assistance, and medicare funding. The Senate passed a $60 billion tax cut package, most of these tax cuts were for the nation’s wealthy. These bills as a whole required the poor and middle class to sacrifice their well-being for the sole benefit of the rich. Ultimately, it will be the poor and middle-class who will have to pay the large deficits that will result since the rich are on track to pay no taxes whatsoever.

The biggest disappointment with these actions is that it was the government that created the middle class, and now it is the government that is going to destroy the middle class. After World War II, the GI Bill was created. Tens of thousands of soldiers where able to go to school when they returned from Europe and the Pacific. Also, the government created programs for veterans to obtain affordable mortgages so they could purchase their first homes. Through programs like these, the vets became the first solid middle class this nation had ever had.

Since WW II, the middle class has relied upon the government to allow it to continue to exist. Access to college through student loans, PELL grants and other financing mechanisms has allowed the middle class to send their children to college. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been integral in ensuring that interest rates would consistently be low enough and stable enough for the middle class to get mortgages, and the one tax shelter the middle class has access to is the tax deduction for mortgage interest - this is a tax deduction that a panel has recommended having removed from the tax code because it gives too much money to too many people.

All of this assistance will soon be gone due to the GOP’s actions. When the assistance disappears so will the core of the middle class. Additionally, there will be unsustainable deficits left in their wake and those who used to make up the middle class will have the burden of paying off the deficits which destroyed their livelihoods in the first place. Ultimately, there will not be enough money to reduce the debt; therefore, there will not be enough money to reestablish the middle class either. If the GOP is left in control of the government, the only ones who will suffer will be those who once thought they were living a comfortable life.

Predictions

Last March I commented that the Democrats could not take over Congress because the electorial math did not work out - there just were not enough competative seats for the Democrats to get fifteen new seats. While that may still be true, it is a lot more exciting and at least possible that fifteen or more GOP incumbents will be ousted.

The election gets much more exciting if one pays attention to specific races. For instance, two time incumbent Mike Ferguson who is a hardcore Bush follower and about as far to the right as Rick Santorum to the West is in a tight race with Linda Stender. The New York times says that the district is leaning Ferguson, but some polls have it as a statistical dead heat.

The district has been cleverly drawn to support the GOP candidates by incorporating much of the western part of New Jersey. So the fact that there is a possibility that Ferguson will lose is a significant statement of the local and national political sentiment.

This of course should be contrasted with what is thought to be a more liberal district to the north, which ironically has an even more conservative GOP incumbent, Scott Garrett. He is being challenged by Paul Aronsohn, who held a position in government with the Clinton administration and Governor McGreevey's administration. It does not appear that it is going to be a close election there regardless of the reasons for Aronsohn's strong political resume.

What is known, is that November 7 is going to be a very interesting night, one that should be watched closely by all.

A Few Simple Words

In the course of history some of the most powerful statements have been made by using a minimal number of words. General Colin Powell, in his letter to Senator John McCain, has once again achieved this remarkable feat.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against
terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

In all of the blogs that have been discussing this issue, it could not have been said any better.

New Definitions

A couple of weeks ago, President Bush declared that some of the people he decreed to be the top terrorists who had been captured by the United States were going to be transferred to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He also stated that these top terrorists were going to be put on trial for their actions now that their use in interrogations has been exhausted. The problem is the tribunal process implemented by the White House was overruled by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that the Congress is the governmental body that needed to implement the tribunal process; the President was not authorized to act as he did. The Court also determined that the Geneva Convention applies to all aspects of the so called "War on Terrorism" including the black ops prisons where these people were held.

The relevance of the later determination is that the secret prisons, which the White House denied existed and accused journalists of treason for having disclosed, engage in torture tactics to acquire information. However, these techniques violate "Common Article Three," which is a general article that is in all of the Geneva Conventions. It prohibits, among other things, "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." Bush claims that these are vague and undefined terms that the US Congress needs to define; however, the White House is wrong to make this allegation.

While the terms do not have definitions set forth in the Treaties themselves, there are international tribunals which have interpreted these treaties and these interpretations are internationally recognized. This is the same as the interpretation of vague statutes that Congress drafts. Once the courts interpret statutory language, that becomes binding on all acting under the statute. The Treaties have been interpreted and these interpretations are binding on all governments that are signatories to the Treaties, including the United States. Just like individual states are not allowed to pass laws declaring that they are going to interpret a federal statute different than the federal courts have interpreted it, nations are not allowed to pass laws with different definitions than those which have been established by international tribunals. Thus any interpretation by the White House or the Congress which deviates from the international norm of Common Article Three is a violation of the Treaty.

Violating a treaty is significant. Treaties signed by the United States become the law of the land. The only laws in the United States that are given greater weight than a treaty is the United States Constitution itself. No statute can overrule a treaty and violating a treaty is virtually the same as committing a constitutional violation. Thus, the White House and the Congress are committing violations of the magnitude of a constitutional violation by refusing to follow the Geneva Convention and trying to manipulate the language to meet the White House’s nefarious desires regarding it.

Committing constitutional violations rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors which justify impeachment.

Market Manipulation

Tough times for BP. There is an investigations into Prudhoe Bay and a recent court decision finding that it manipulated propane prices, a lawsuit is about to go to trial regarding an oil refinery explosion and now it is being investigated for manipulating oil and gas prices. It comes as no surprise that an oil company might manipulate its prices. With oil companies recording record profits and the cost per barrel of oil not being in direct relation with the prices at the pump. As has been previously discussed, prior to Hurricane Katrina, gas prices went up faster than the cost per barrel and then as the prices came down, they did so out of sync with the price of a barrel of oil. All of this likely occurred due to manipulation, and it should have been ferreted out long before this.

Oil companies have finally established the perfect storm. There is a virtual monopoly on all oil production, refining and sales in the United States. The five major companies have reported the highest corporate profits in history, yet people are comfortable that they are playing by the rules, not taking advantage of their market dominance. While they may be playing by the rules, the rules are what they decided they are. The government has gotten out of the way of these companies. The current administration has given the oil companies a blank check; Congress has yelled at the oil companies in hearings telling them to stop price gouging, but they have done nothing more, no winfall tax has been imposed, no regulations regarding the production and pricing have been put into place and no one is doing anything to prevent the environmental disasters that are befalling the areas where there is drilling - worse, there is a push to open up new protected areas for drilling like ANWAR and national parks in Utah and other states have been opened for exploratory drilling.

So long as the oil companies are allowed to decide how they are going to operate and no checks on their authority is imposed, they will of course use their information on the drilling side to manipulate prices to ensure the greatest profits. As long as the companies are allowed to control the drilling and distribution of oil and gas, they will be able to use the information on both sides of the production line to maximize profits to the consumer’s detriment. Rest assured the stock holders are not making enough on their investment to cover their new gas and oil prices. Exxon’s price is up about 55% over the past two years, so the profits are not going to the investors, but rather to the corporate fat cats.

BP is not the only company that is using its inside information to manipulate the oil prices, but it is the only one that is currently being investigated. The question is what will be done when the investigation is completed. Will BP be required to disgorge their profits and will comprehensive reform be put into place, or will the company receive a slap on the wrist and allowed to continue performing business as usual. It is likely that no real consequences will result from this and everyone will continue as usual, the oil companies will continue to record record profits, and the average person will continue to feel the wallet pressures of the inflated prices at the pump that allows the record profits to continue soaring.

Middle-Class Tax

Recently, Congress voted not to raise the minimum wage. In typical congressional fashion, riders were attached to the minimum wage bill, but one rider received more attention than others. The GOP attached a rider that would have required the repeal of the estate tax. At the same time Congressmen were voting to raise the wage that must be paid to the nations lowest paid workers, it was also voting to make the richest of people richer by allowing them to avoid the estate tax.

The estate tax already exempts the first million dollars of an estate and affects only the richest 2% of all Americans. Nonetheless, the GOP has been relentless in trying to destroy this tax. It passed a bill that was vetoed by President Clinton and in the tax reform bill that passed in 2001, it raised the cap significantly and actually eliminates the tax for one year prior to the law’s sunset. Since then, the GOP has been trying to make the repeal permanent.

The GOP spends a great deal of its time trying to convince middle America that they are supporters of the little guys and that they are looking out for the middle-class. The rider on the minimum wage bill proves otherwise. There was no indication that the GOP was interested in changing the parameters of who is required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which is a tax that is unintentionally subsuming more and more middle-class Americans. Rather, the GOP relentlessly attacks a tax that affects few rich people. The AMT was intended to prevent the rich from avoiding taxes by placing significant amounts of money in tax shelters, but the threshold amount has not been adjusted for inflation. The end result has been that people lower and lower on the economic scale are being penalized by the AMT. Now, mostly only the middle-class is paying the tax opposed to the intended targets, the rich.

The GOP has also gone out of its way to force the middle-class to pay more in other respects as well. The GOP has systematically reduced federal funding to institutions of higher education and at the same time destroyed the subsidized loans that students used to be eligible for. This has resulted in the middle-class having to pay more in initial costs for education and they are paying higher amounts of interest because the government is not assisting them through the subsidies it used to provide.

If this is not enough, a recent study regarding the tax code suggested that mortgage interest be removed as a tax deduction. Considering this is the largest tax deduction must middle-class Americans receive, reducing or removing it as a tax deduction would have a disproportionate impact on the middle-class.

Everything the GOP does is designed to hurt the middle-class. The GOP is not at all interested in bringing the middle-class up to the upper thresholds of the wealthy. They are trying to push them back into the throws of the poor. Until the GOP stops hurting the middle-class, it cannot and will not be known as a friend of the middle-class. It is time for the middle-class voters to stop voting for the GOP so long as they are being hurt by this party.

Prudhoe Bay

BP has closed down its operations in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Up to 400,000 barrels of oil are pumped out of the oil field every day, and after learning that there are corroded components, BP determined that opposed to risking a major oil spill it would shut down its operations. Some oil has spilled in the area; however, BP claims that if it did not shut down the operations, a larger oil spill could have occurred. Now, BP is conducting maintenance on its equipment and trying to prevent any spillage from occurring, so it can restart its drilling operations.

The State of Alaska heavily taxes the oil that comes out of the ground. Nearly 80% of the State’s revenue is generated by oil tax. Losing a tax on 400,000 barrels of oil per day for who knows how long results in Alaska losing a lot of money - billions of dollars. Due to this loss of revenue, the Governor of Alaska is having his Attorney General investigate whether there is any liability which BP may have to the State for this lost revenue.

So BP is put in a bad spot. It could shut down the oil fields and prevent a larger oil spill than that which has already occurred and face liability to the State for its lost revenue. Alternatively, it could have continued operations, tried to make the repairs while active drilling continued and risked an oil spill for which it would have had to pay an environmental penalty and the cost of clean-up. Either way it was losing money. So at this point BP was in a no win situation. Should it protect its coffers or the environment. Oil companies are not known for being too concerned with the environmental impact of their operations. Thus, it would be more likely that facing this dilemma, the environment would be expendable in its opinion. Considering the alternatives, maybe BP should be commended for have protected the environment from more significant damage.

Then again, maybe BP has been delinquent up to this point and should be penalized through fines by the State and Federal Governments. BP did not engage in the preventative maintenance to ensure that the equipment was not corroded and dilapidated in the first place until it was already in a failing state. By failing to ensure that the pipes were in proper condition, BP placed itself in a position whereby it faced the option of causing a major oil spill or being sued by the State for lost tax revenue. This decision to not perform preventative maintenance placed the environment and the company at risk, yet BP did nothing until it was too late.

Corporations failing to ensure that its equipment is was not in proper condition seems to be habitual. The northeast blackout was caused because an electrical company chose to not maintain electrical lines. There was no profit in maintaining the electrical lines so it was a low priority. This low priority cost the nation billions of dollars in lost revenue when the lights went out for several days in the entire northeast.

BP has committed the same crime. It chose to not maintain essential equipment and risk the consequences regardless of what they may be. Deregulation allowed for the Ohio electrical company to not properly maintain the electrical lines, and lack of government oversight of the oil fields allowed BP to not maintain its equipment properly. In both cases, the public has been harmed as a result of a lack of government oversight.

Brand Names

First impressions are the most important thing a person can make. Once that first impression is made, typically the other person holds on to the impression, and it is difficult to change. Businesses seek to create impressions too. Obtaining a reputation or "brand" is important for a business. The brand can be established through a company’s actions or clever marketing. When one thinks of G.M. they likely think about possible bankruptcy and pension default; Ford - the Pinto; Exxon - obscene profits and the Valdez. There are people who still refuse to purchase gas at an Exxon station due to the Valdez accident which occurred seventeen years ago (March 24, 1989). In other words, the actions of a company can break a company.

Clever advertising can create a brand, too. Ben and Jerry’s, even though it is now owned by a huge corporation (Unilever), still has the reputation of being a small town company which is concerned with the environment, donates to charity, and is involved in progressive social programs. All of these things may have been true before the company was acquired by Unilever, but it is unlikely that much if any of it is true today considering it has to be more concerned with stockholders’ returns opposed to social welfare.

Clever advertising can also change a brand. BP is an oil company that engages in all of the bad things that oil companies do. In fact, they are currently embroiled in a dispute regard oil leaks in Prudhoe Bay, a pristine environmental sanctuary. Nonetheless, BP has changed its brand from a nasty oil company to a "green" company because it reduced its own emissions by about 20% and claims to be focused on alternative energies. To create this image, BP spent untold sums of money, a lot of time and a lot of energy.

When the average American is asked about labor unions the likely impression is corruption. They know the stories of Jimmy Hoffa and others who where involved with the mob or were skimming money from the till. While the FBI spent a decade or more infiltrating organized labor and the mob, the reputation of the corrupt unions which are out more for their own gain opposed to the interests of the workers they represent remains. This reputation or brand is detrimental to the union movement. If the unions want to increase membership, infiltrate Wal-Mart and other large employers, then they need to rebrand.

Unions as a whole need to create an image which is advantageous to the workers and not adversarial. Low wage workers, who think the fat cats at the top of the union organizational chart are making millions off their union dues, which they see as a hardship to pay in the first place, will not voluntarily give up part of their small salary if they believe that they will not benefit from the membership. If the goal of the AFL-CIO or SEIU is to unionize Wal-Mart, then they need to be in a position to convince the employees that they will benefit more from the membership than the union will benefit. This is a difficult sale to make based upon the animosity toward unions that has established itself and the reputation unions created for themselves. Until this is done, however, the unions will merely spin their wheels and continue to fail in expanding their membership.

Failure to get more members could also result in the final destruction of unions. One of the main reasons people join unions today is for the pension system. If there are more retirees than workers, then the pensions will go bust. Loss of the pensions will result in a loss of membership. The continued loss of members be it for reduction in pension benefits or due to general attrition, will ultimately result in unions folding up shop and organized labor will become a thing of the past.

With union membership at about 13% of the US workforce, the Unions need to find ways to attract new members and become a force within the nation again. While their reputation remains as corrupt organizations, their membership will remain low and continue to decrease. Absent rebranding, the unions will not accomplish their goal and all workers, union and non-union will suffer as a result.

7-7 Compensation

On July 7, 2005, terrorist bombs ripped through the London transportation system killing 52 people. During the recent anniversary of the attack, there were discussions, aired in the United States, as to whether the victim’s families should receive monetary compensation from the government as a result of their loss. The debate stems from the Victims’ Compensation Fund that was established in the United States after the 9-11 attacks which killed over 3000 in the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania. After the fund was created there were a number of voices from the Oklahoma City bombings that were saying that if the 9-11 victims were being compensated, then they too should receive compensation for their loss in 1996, five years earlier.

The clamoring for compensation for the London and Oklahoma City attacks misunderstands the reason for the Victims’ Compensation Fund and why the United States Government paid money to many of those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The basis for the Victims’ Compensation Fund does not exist for the other two attacks, and the respective governments should not provide the families compensation.

September 11 was largely a result of airlines being negligent in the safety features placed in their airplanes. The airlines had a major hand in the security screening that passengers underwent prior to boarding the airplanes and were solely responsible for the specifications of the airplanes themselves. As a result of United’s and American’s negligent actions, the planes were susceptible to being taken over by hijackers.

For instance, the security screeners were forced to be sure people moved quickly through the security line, so the airplanes were not delayed as a result of security procedures. This allowed for people to go through a security line with a number of dangerous items, including straight razors. At the time, it is unlikely that even if security guards were more diligent in the screening process, they would not have confiscated box cutters since no one would have seen them as a threat to the safety of the passengers or airplane. What was a greater looming threat that the airlines knew about and were responsible for not correcting was the lack of security for the cockpit. Flimsy doors with inadequate locks separated the cockpit from the passenger compartment. Pilots had complained a number of times long before September 11 that dunks were known to have breached the door and gotten access to the cockpit placing the airplane in danger since the pilots were required to address a drunk in the cockpit opposed to flying the airplane. Despite the complaints, the airlines chose to be cheap and not put in reinforced doors and secure locks to protect the pilots from drunks to terrorists. This negligent act of failing to secure the cockpit resulted in the terrorists being able to get into the cockpit and taking charge of the airplane.

After the attacks, it was apparent that the airlines were negligent in their actions and faced lawsuits from all of the people who were onboard the four airplanes and those who were killed in the four crashes. This exposed two major airlines to endless lawsuits which likely would result in forcing both of them to go under.

Due to deregulation, the legacy airlines have been disappearing. Many of those that used to exist have been subsumed into other companies resulting in only a handful of companies continuing to operate. A loss of two of those legacy carriers would reduce the competition in the airline sector allowing for the remaining airlines to have a monopoly on the market and anti-competitive advantages over any new airline which may try to fill the void left by the collapse of United and American.

The United States Congress understood the economic calamity that would result in these two airlines folding, so it created a corporate welfare program in the form of a bailout. The United States Government established a policy whereby it would make payments to the victims families based upon an archaic formula devised by a bureaucratic committee, and in exchange for receiving the payment, the victims’ families waived their right to sue the airlines. The waiver provision was the most important part for the Government because it helped protect the legacy carriers.

The possibility of major economic ruin for a large sector of the economy or even the overall United States economy was not present in the Oklahoma City attack and similarly not in the London attacks. No one was suing Ryder truck claiming that it was negligent in renting the truck to Timothy McVeigh. Even if they did, Ryder going out of business as a result would not have major implications on the rental truck industry or the overall US economy. Nor is it likely that the London transit system is going to be put out of business if it gets sued by the 52 victims families.

In the end, the underlying need for a government funded compensation program is not present in the other two incidences to justify a compensation fund being created. Further, what consideration would there be in victims taking the money? Would they waive their right to sue the transit system in London or the Ryder Truck Company in Oklahoma City? Such a waiver is not really necessary in either case, and there is no other incentive to provide such compensation. Moreover, governments do not want to establish a policy whereby they become the de facto insurance policy for terrorist attacks, when in reality, the private sector needs to take steps to protect the people they serve and the private companies need to take out their own insurance policies for such attacks on their businesses.

More of the Same

In May, United States Attorney Chris Christie gave a speech during which he stated that the most controversial aspect of the Patriot Act has never been utilized and citizens should not be fearful of whether their library records are vulnerable to government inspection. The USA Patriot Act allows for the FBI to demand that a public library disclose what patrons have checked out and the library cannot disclose to anyone, including the patron, that the demand has been made. However, what US Attorney Christie did not explain was how it is that if this provision has never been utilized, why is it the FBI has dropped its demand that a Connecticut library produce records regarding computer use by its patrons.

The instant case exposes the flaws in the provision of the USA Patriot Act, which need to be remedied. The FBI demanded that files from a computer be produced as a part of its investigation into alleged terrorist acts. However, after more than a year with the library system refusing to produce the documents, it turns out that the terrorist threat that was being investigated was not a terrorist threat at all. Rather, through other means, the FBI determined that the threat was "not viable."

This determination shows that the FBI does not need to demand these private records from libraries without a warrant if it just uses its other investigative tools and sources to assess the alleged threats. The Patriot Act’s provision which allows for the library records’ warrantless inspect is nothing more than a lazy shortcut that the FBI is trying to use in violation of the privacy rights of the citizens. Considering the majority of the so called leads that the FBI engages in regarding terrorism are false, the FBI’s attempt to use lazy shortcuts for investigation techniques exposes too many people to having their library records inspected needlessly.

The fact that a U.S. Attorney knowingly tells people that we should not be fearful of having our library records inspected pursuant to the library provision of the Patriot Act because this provision has never been utilized is disconcerting. This administration has a habit of lying to the public to serve its political gains, and it loses more credibility each time it is caught in the lies. However, as is typically in any administration, the lower you go on the organizational chart the less likely it is that they will be engaged in the systematic talking points. Despite this, a lowly U.S. Attorney has been schooled in the distortion of the truth process that the White House has engaged in for five years. This not only undermines the credibility of the administration, but also the U.S. Attorney’s office, regardless of who is in office, and law enforcement agencies in general.

These deceptions and lies undermine the veracity of all who have come before and will come afterward, and when tools which may be similar to the library search provision are really necessary and real threats are investigated, no one will allow the inspections because too many times will we have been lied to and deceived by all levels of administrations.

Personal Savings Rate

The United States’ personal savings rate is -1.7%. The numbers are a bit skewed because people at the bottom of the income scale are continuing to save the way they always have; however, the people at the top of the income scale are disproportionately affecting the statistic by spending significantly more than they earn. Even so, there is consensus that we are saving less today than ten or fifteen years ago. But there are some things that likely account for this lack of savings which is not being discussed or acknowledged.

First our entire retirement system has changed. Fifteen years ago, employees were not required to put much money aside to cover their retirement because they were enrolled in defined benefits programs. Now, employees who are not making much more money in inflation adjusted dollars are required to take money out of their budget and put it toward a 401(k). The average savings in 401(k) is about 8%, and if you take the first 8% of a person’s income and put it in unliquidated accounts while other bills like rent and food continue going up in cost, there is less money available to the person to save. It should also be noted that 401(k) savings is not accounted for in the personal savings rate, so this savings is not included in the -1.7%.

The government has created a generation of debt in Generation X and those coming up through the ranks afterward. It used to be that college students were able to rely upon grants and other subsidized money to pay for college tuition. Today, college, the road to the middle-class, has increased substantially in cost, which is in part due to the government’s refusal to provide money to institutions of higher education, and the government has taken away the last bastion of assistance to middle-class students – subsidized student loans. As costs have gone up and the obligation to pay for school has shifted from subsidized funds to personal loans and the personal loans have become more burdensome on the students, when a student graduates, they are saddled with more debt than other generation before it. The average student is graduating with more than $20,000 in debt, although this statistic is likely very low compared to the real debt level students have upon graduation. Being saddled with debt and likely low incomes immediately after college these students have no way to save money for their rainy day fund.

The Baby Boomers are getting squeezed too. Their parents are getting older and there are no safety nets for the aging. Medicare and Medicaid are not sufficient to provide medical coverage for those who need long-term care, so their children are looked to for the funds to cover the costs. At the same time, the Baby Boomers have children in college who are looking for assistance to cover the ever increasing tuition costs. So any disposable income they have is likely going to others to assist them in covering their essential needs. As these resources decrease, the ability to save money goes down.

If having people save money is important to the nation, then the nation needs to reevaluate how people should come up with the cash for the greatest drains on people’s finances. The retirement burden needs to be shifted away from the employee, college tuition needs to be reduced and government assistance needs to be reinstated, and elder care needs to be established. As the GOP starves the beast, they are destroying the minimal safety net that used to exist and the end result is that the economy is precariously teetering because while the people could afford the taxes that established the safety nets and could afford increased taxes to strengthen these safety nets they cannot afford the significantly greater expense of building from scratch the personal safety nets especially while wages stagnate. Without any savings to fall back upon because all their money is going into the building of the safety nets, when (not if) the economy collapses, due to irresponsible economic policies, all of the middle-class will get lost into poverty and there will be no one to assist in the rebuilding of the national economy. In other words, it is in the nations economic interest to rebuild the safety nets and remove these burdens from the middle-class.

Knock-And-Announce

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled this week that while police must comply with the "knock-and-announce" rule when executing a search warrant, if they fail to, then the evidence can still be used in a court of law. These seem to be contradictory positions, but the issue rests with whether the execution of the warrant, not the issuance of it, was improper. Thus, the question becomes one of procedure over substance and which should predominate.

In 1995, a unanimous Court determined that the common-law rule of police knocking on a person’s door prior to entering a house and executing a search warrant was required in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure provisions. In other cases, it had been determined that if a search is conducted without probable cause, then the evidence illegally procured had to be suppressed and could not be used in a criminal trial.

Technically, nothing has changed the Fourth Amendment requirements that a police officer must knock prior to executing a search warrant; however, practically, there is no immediate ramification for failure to adhere to this requirement since the evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the warrant can still be used in court. The majority said it can be and several organizations have denounced this decision as a loss of civil liberties. However, it must be determined just what has been lost and whether it was actually a civil liberty prior to the decision.

SCOTUS’s decision does not remove the requirement that the police obtain a warrant prior to entering a house and conducting a search. Thus, prior to the police approaching the house, the police had to show probable cause to a neutral judge in order to obtain the warrant. Once probable cause has been established, the Fourth Amendment’s substantive requirements have been met and only procedural execution of the warrant needs to be conducted. Whether they knock is merely a minor procedural matter that does not diminish the validity of the warrant or the fruits of the search.

This matter can be viewed in a different way as well. When a police officer knocks on a door to execute a warrant a person will presumably answer the door. At that time, the officer will state that he is there pursuant to a warrant to search the house. That person can either voluntarily allow the officer in or deny them entry. If entry is denied, then the officer will force entry and conduct the search anyway. Since the court has already determined that probable cause has been met any search conducted within the parameters of the warrant is valid regardless of whether the home owner acquiesces to the police’s entry.

The SCOTUS dissent stated that the cost of replacing the door and the prevention of a person being surprised by the enforcement of a warrant justify the knock-and-announce rule. Such arguments do not instruct the constitutionality of police actions. Rather the reasonableness of their actions is instructive as to whether they acted within the mandates of the Constitution.

In the end, so long as there is probable cause to conduct a search, the procedure of the execution should not denigrate the evidence procured.

Funding the Enemy

Organizations are beginning to use their power as shareholders in corporations as swords to force companies to engage in more appropriate actions as determined by the organizations. Specifically, there are non-profit organizations which request that shareholders assign their proxy vote to them so the non-profit can vote for corporate resolutions that are in the interest of the non-profit organization. For example, environmental groups obtain proxies of oil companies to vote on environmental measures while humanitarian organizations introduce and vote for international humanitarian requirements on similar companies.

There are others who use their money to invest in only "green" companies. These funds allow investors to director their money to socially responsible companies opposed to continuing to fund companies that do nothing but worry about the bottom line regardless of the long term consequences of their actions. Such green funds have not become a major aspect of the mutual fund families available to investors; however, they are gaining strength and are utilized by some investors regardless of whether the returns are as strong as other funds.

As organizations seek to use their money and financial power to influence corporate actions, it is a wonder why unions are funding the enemy. Wal-Mart is currently having its annual shareholders meeting. A resolution has been introduced to require Wal-Mart to publish the amount of money that it contributes to state and federal political campaigns. The irony is that the resolution was introduced by the Teamsters. Apparently, the Teamsters pension fund has invested in Wal-Mart and holds enough shares that it can introduce resolutions and garner support for such resolutions.

For a number of years the AFL-CIO, an organization the Teamsters used to belong to, has been trying to unionize Wal-Mart. Despite all of those years and all of the energy put into the process, it was not successful in unionizing even a single store. In fact, Wal-Mart violated federal law on a number of occasions when it closed stores in which it thought that it would lose a union vote. These efforts have been expensive for the unions involved in the unionization effort and have taken a significant amount of time and effort.

The question then becomes, if the unions are working so hard to unionize Wal-Mart, why is their pension funds investing in Wal-Mart? It may be profitable for the pension fund to invest in the stock, but isn’t it in the long term interest of the Teamsters to only invest in companies which are unionized or at least not adverse to unions? The Teamsters pension fund likely has a lot of money to invest into various companies. If it invested only in companies which were supportive of the Teamsters, then those companies would become stronger based upon having unions and being able to utilize union money. This in turn would allow these companies to become stronger and in turn, the Teamsters would become stronger.

Continuing to invest in companies that are adverse to their positions and existence only undermines the unions. If they continue to invest in companies that are not in their interest and the unions become weaker as a result because such companies become stronger, then the unions deserve to fail and become obsolete. Such failure will be because of their own actions, and we must reap what we sow.

Profit Sharing

We have been told that oil prices have peaked and are slowing coming down. Part of the reason for the reduction of gas prices is that demand has dropped and more supply has come on-line. The supply is a result of some refineries which were "closed down for repairs" being revived and are now producing usable fuel.

At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission has released a report which looked at the narrow issue of why gas prices spiked in September 2005. The final conclusion was that the FTC did not know. One of the problems with the study was that if an oil company chose to not put its full force behind getting refineries on-line, there was no way for a government study to show that there were intentional delays that resulted in artificially inflated gas prices.

Several summers ago California suffered from high energy prices and rolling blackouts. A great deal of this was a result of Enron contacting powerplants and telling them that they should shut down for repairs as their energy was not needed on the grid. The powerplants complied, which reducing the amount of energy on the grid. This resulted in higher prices of the remaining supply and the need for rolling blackouts to try and balance the demand and the artificially diminished supply. Northern California all but came to a complete stop.

As is being shown by the United States in the Skilling and Lay trial that has recently been submitted to the jury, Enron obtained exorbitant profits from manipulating the market and abusing the power which it had wielded. There is no reason to believe that the few oil companies that are left have not engaged in the same type of market manipulation. There are only a few major oil companies in this country, and they are the most profitable companies in the nation - possibly the world. These companies know that the nation is beholden to their product and that the nation will pay any price that is placed on the product. If the companies reduce the amount of usable gas by scaling down the refinery capacity and the number of refineries which are operational, then they can force the prices up and increase the amount of profit that is procured.

We have seen a company manipulate the fifth largest economy in the world in order to obtain unjust profits. There is no reason to believe that the oil companies are any more noble than Enron in that they would not collude to manipulate the market and ensure that they too can obtain huge sums of profits at the detriment of the public’s pocketbook and nation’s overall economy.

The only entity that is big enough to take on these companies and force them to abide by legitimate means of obtaining profits and staying in business is the United States government; however, since we currently have "leaders" who have worked in the oil industry, it is unlikely that anyone in this Administration will go after the companies or even question their actions. Thus, there is a big pay day for all of the oil companies until at least 2008 , and they know it.

The Lost Generation

A recent survey of college students asked what places they wanted to work had the number one result as Disney. Number two was Google. Also in the top five was the State Department, the FBI and the CIA. The study indicates that college students want to devote their time to public service. However, there is still a question as to what parts of public service will be filled by Generation X and subsequent generations.

New Jersey’s U.S. Attorney, Chris Christie, gave a speech during which he recited a story from when he spoke to an elementary class. At that time he asked how many of them wanted to be President of the United States when they grew up. According to the U.S. Attorney, none of the students raised their hands. The U.S. Attorney attributed this lack of desire to be in politics and public service to the perception of corruption in politics. While his address focused on the corruption in New Jersey, the national news has been focusing on Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Delay, Porter Goss’s attendance at poker and hooker parties, etc. Their actions and all of this Administration’s the misdeeds has taken a toll on those who may come afterward.

Kennedy inspired a generation of people to want to become part of government and make a difference in others lives. Reagan began killing this idea by espousing tax cuts and destruction of the social safety net that was built during the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. These beliefs have crescendoed with this Administration and the belief that starving the beast and destruction of government is necessary. The past twenty plus years has made the government the villain which has reduced people’s desire to be part of government.

Another impediment people becoming governmental leaders is the financial aspect. As government starves the beast higher education has suffered. The grants that used to be given to students to pay for school have dried up because the federal funding has been reduced. Now students are ever more reliant on loans that need to be paid off upon graduation. Further, the Administration has made the loans more expensive by removing the government subsidy of interest payments while the student is in school. Thus, the students will have the interest compound on the loan for the four to five years they are in school and will be in greater debt upon graduation. Lastly, public institutions have lost funding from the federal government and have had to pass the additional costs onto the students thereby making it more expensive for the students to go to school, which means the interest that is getting compounded into the student loans is increasing faster because the principal is higher. In the end, the banks are going to make a lot more money than they used to and the students will be saddled with a significantly larger debt than they would have had just a generation ago. The end result is that the debt forces people to seek out the higher paying jobs, not the jobs they want to take which may be with the government or a non-profit organization.

The inspiration of a generation ago is gone. Piece by piece the past twenty years of leadership has dismantled what we were and what we wanted to be. The leadership has catered to businesses to ensure them profits and a beholden workforce by removing the government as a competitive or desirable employer. It is no surprise that the number two place college students want to work has the motto of "Do no evil" and pays a lot. Maybe its time for the government to adopt a similar motto and become part of the solution as it was trying to be under Kennedy’s watch.

Military Priorities

Someone needs to set forth a definition of what the Air National Guard’s duties and responsibilities are. As it stands they are supposed to be combat support in Iraq, disaster relief during natural disasters and now they are supposed to be Border Patrol. Their mission in the 1960s during the Vietnam War was "domestic security." So when Dubya was avoiding military duty he flew airplanes to protect our airspace from the ever creeping presence of communism. But today, no one knows what it is the Air National Guard are supposed to be trained to do or ready to perform. The Air National Guard is not supposed to be some catch all for the President to order around whenever he feels like it. A comprehensive military policy is necessary setting forth what roles the military is supposed to play in this nation and around the world.

As genocide occurs in Darfur, this Administration has concluded that the most pressing military threat to the US are Latinos coming across the border. This military threat adds billions of dollars to our economy and ensures a lot of services such as picking fruits and vegetables, building houses, cleaning homes and offices and other work is performed regularly. Apparently, all of these Latinos streaming across the border are more important than assisting Liberia when it specifically requested US intervention in its civil war.

As people die needlessly around the world, the United States needs to be willing to use its military force and its leadership to build coalitions of nations to mobilize and act. Without a comprehensive strategy as to the role the United States’, when crises occur, there is no framework for any Administration to determine how it should handle the situation. The ad hoc method of making decisions has resulted in contradictory decisions - it is right to stop the genocide in the former Yugoslavia but not in Rwanda, Darfur, or Sierra Leone.

Without a plan there is no way to prepare or train the military personnel, including the Air National Guard. This results in people protesting the over extension of the military and its personnel. The same military personnel are going into Iraq over and over again while other battalions remain home the entire duration of the conflict. Troops are sent to New Orleans without the proper equipment or training and are then told to attend to the Mexican border - again without the necessary training.

The lack of coherent policies puts the personnel in harms way. Without the necessary training, equipment and the over extension results in the personnel being overly tired and not as sharp and aware of their surrounds as they must be. All of this results in mistakes that can result in death and harm to innocent civilians who believe, reliably, that the military personnel assisting them are prepared and knowledgeable about what to do. Unfortunately, they do not.

Although, without a comprehensive plan, politicians can use the military for political gain alone as Dubya has done with the Air National Guard in Monday’s speech and saying that thousands can be deployed to the border as support for the Border Patrol.

TV News

Newsweek has an article this week about the season finale of the television show Lost, which is all fine and good considering it is in the "Entertainment" section of the magazine. But more and more television shows are becoming part of the news that is being provided by what is supposed to be reputable news sources. When Survivor was first on the air each of the people who were voted off were paraded out on the CBS morning show and interviewed and discussed their experiences as if such a thing was newsworthy. Of course the morning shows probably should not be considered real news sources, but they pretend to be quality news.

Today, legitimate news magazines such as Newsweek are promoting articles such as the season finale of Lost as a reason to purchase their product. They downplay real news stories, have reduced the space in the magazine for actual news stories, and have apparently decided to forgo actual investigative journalism in lieu of the easy story that requires no thought process for the writer, editor or reader.

Newsweek is not the only culprit. Television news broadcasts provide stories regarding American Idle and those voted off the stage and all of the warm praises Simon provides them as if this is an important event for those watching the broadcast seeking newsworthy events.

Timing, significance, proximity, prominence and human interest are the categories which are generally used to determine if a story is newsworthy. A story needs to fit into at least two of the categories to be considered. Articles about fictional stories on television or contestants on game shows do not meet this criteria except in the most extreme scenario. When Ken Jennings who won for six months straight and had over $2 million of winnings lost it was worth a news cycle, but the day in and day out stories in the news about what is on television degrades the news process and only proves that Americans are not concerned with the things that are going on around them; rather, Americans are disconnected and uninterested in the impact of their actions in the world; they only concern themselves with television shows.

Instead of talking about fictional stories, it is time that Americans start getting an education in its impact on the world and how the citizens of the nation are fairing under this Administration’s ineptness. Americans should be getting news stories about Darfur, Liberia, Afghanistan, the poor in LA, Topeka and New York. These are actual stories that fit in the criteria for news and should be in place of stories about fictional events. So long as the media outlets continue to report on non-newsworthy events Americans will remain apatetic to their role in world. It is time for the media to be responsible for presenting actual newsworthy events so Americans can become more engaged in their surroundings.

No Economic Benefits

Justification for tax cuts continues to be that they will spur the economy. We have been hearing this argument for nearly six years now, but in the wake of the strongest economy in generations (the ‘90s) the succession of tax cuts since 2001 have apparently done little or nothing for the economy. A recent NY Times/CBS News shows that 28% of those polled approve of Bush’s handling of the economy. This is also reflected in the consumer confidence numbers, which are at the lowest point since last October and took the biggest one-time drop in 28 years.

Maybe it is true that cutting taxes can spur the economy. In fact, it makes sense that if less of a person’s paycheck is devoted to taxes they will spend more; however, there are a few flaws in the theory. First, this is a nation in debt and people realize that they cannot continue spending without consequences. As such, any extra money that is provided to the average person will go to debt reduction and not to the purchase of new products. This was seen with the $300 per taxpayer rebate that was distributed in 2001. When those checks were issued 46.2% of the people used it to pay off debt. The same would likely occur if the average American received a tax decrease: they would primarily use the money to pay off ever growing credit cards.

The second flaw in the theory is that the tax cuts that have been enacted have been skewed toward the top income brackets. The people at the top of the income scale do not need reduced taxes to have money accessible to spend in the economy. Rather they have disposable income and much of that money sits idly in the markets earning more money and not moving through the economy, which is necessary for economic benefits.

Moreover, when the first set of tax cuts were enacted and the discussion of making dividends tax free was occurring, businesses were not in need of money; therefore, encouraging investment in businesses was not necessary. Interest rates were extremely low and obtaining loans from banks, if extra money was necessary for infrastructure or capital improvements, were easily accessable. The fact that they did not access it and did not engage in capital improvements shows that they were not looking for additional money from stock investments or otherwise. Thus, the reductions in tax rates either were not designed or did not encourage actual investment in businesses.

The end result is that the Administration did not seek to spur the economy nor did it seek to encourage investment in businesses with the tax cuts from 2001 through today. Rather, the tax cuts have been nothing more than a give away to the rich. Nothing of significance has gone to the middle or lower classes and the upper class has not used the money for economic prosperity, just personal income gains.

The argument that the tax cuts were designed to spur the economy has been a myth and continues to be a myth. Further, no future tax cuts should be passed based upon this claim.